Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Ramesh Bhat
Hazel Titley
Marcin Sokolowski
Nick Swainston
Sam McSweeney
Ryan Shannon
Stephen Ord
Willem van Straten
Bradley Meyers
Mengyao Xue
Ian Morrison



  • New proposal call, but exclusively for extended configuration
  • Since last time, had 3 observing runs (50-60% of sky covered so far)
  • Reminder that "processing" so far has just been "shallow"
  • Recapping highlights from J0036-1033 detections
    • unremarkable pulsar (except for the fact that its our first!)
    • from < 1% of data!
    • exploited archival data for confirmation
    • localisation from ~20' to ~10" via regridding
    • ~30" offset mystery (more discussion later)
    • Parkes followups with UWL: No detection (initially)
    • GMRT followups with central antennas: Detection in both Bands 3 & 4
    • Nick managed to make a Parkes detection (1/6 obs)
    • GMRT imaging: Detection in both Bands 3 & 4
    • GMRT confirms ~25-30 offset. Residual 4" offset still not yet understood
    • Main motivation: get flux density, to confirm whether pulsar is low luminosity
  • Survey simulation by Mengyao confirms we're on track with our 1 new pulsar
  • MWA Phase 3 starting in 2021 -- have to finish observations in Phase 2!

RS: What time span do observations cover?
RB & NS: 150 days
RS: Can you time the pulsar?
RB: Did attempt. Could not completely phase connect. Can someone else try?
RS: Sure. Send the TOAs my way.
SO: Is there a jump?
RB: Probably more a systematic error over time. Quadratic/cubic?
SO: Has there been any successful attempt to time MWA data?
RB: Yes, e.g. Dilpreet's analysis
SO: Then system must be working -- difficulty must be with pulsar. Position error?
RB: Agree. System is probably ok. GMRT gives position to ~few arcseconds.
SO: Test by shifting position and re-timing. See how errors change.
RS: Quadratic errors can probably come from position error, or binary orbit!
SO: P-dot can be better obtained by using observations less widely separated in time
RB: Is P-dot from pdmp also good enough?
SO: Paolo Friere has paper that might help, to do with extracting P-dots
RB: Slow pulsar means relatively few pulses...
SO: Could stability of profile be the issue (given so few pulses)?
RB: Might give random errors.
RS: Probably not, judging by the error bars.
RB: Plan is to publish whatever we have ASAP
BM: Can CHIME help?
RS: Better to wait until paper is out. Us not having access to CHIME data is a turn-off.
SO: What about an ATel?
RB: Still prefer to finish the paper.
SO: First MWA new pulsar, so it may still be worth it, especially since we (now!) have a timing solution
SO: Depends on paper timeline, as to whether ATel makes sense.
RB: Yep -- plan is: couple of weeks till Collaboration Review
WvS: I have a timing solution!
All: Fantastic!
RB: All going well, in that case, TOAs can probably go into paper
RS: Do you have TOAs for earlier observations?
NS: No, but I can generate them.

Nick's Processing Update:

  • Compare July vs Now
  • Stuart has been helping look through candidates
  • Migrated to Garrawarla
  • Containerisation has made it all very easy
  • Garrawarla currently more used than OzStar, but OzStar inherently faster

RS: Continue asking for time on OzStar every semester
RS: Eventually need to distribute processing more widely
SO: Yep, no harm trying out on any other machine that comes along, because of containerisation
RS: Transfer rates are a bottleneck, but not major.

Sam's Update:

  • ML update (Isaac's work and Hazels work)
  • Database app imminent!

SO: There is a new technique! Out of the SKA group.
SM: Great! Send it through! We'll see if it's the same as the LOFAR one.

Marcin's update:

  • MWA imaging -- getting down to 12 mJy/beam in Stokes I, and 2 mJy/beam in Stokes V
  • But positioning was not so clear.
  • Numbers from GMRT suggest only ~1 sigma detection in MWA
  • Susmita's imaging pipeline to detect new pulsars

SO: There's a lot of sidelobe noise. How much deconvolution?
MS: They were cleaned, but not sure how many iterations.
MS: Did try longer integration times, but didn't help too much. Don't think ionosphere was the problem.
SO: I might be able to help, if you have measurement sets.
RB: Sure, but for now, ok for paper to only discuss "putative source" in MWA images.
SO: Should be able to get larger integration time

Action items:

  • NS/RB to send RS, SO, and WvS the J0036-1033 TOAs
  • SO to send details of pulsar ML to SM
  • MS to send CASA measurement sets to SO (& Mitch)
  • No labels